From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Oct 9 18:20:59 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5AF4C16A4B3 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 2003 18:20:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ganymede.hub.org (u173n10.eastlink.ca [24.224.173.10]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1206E43FBF for ; Thu, 9 Oct 2003 18:20:58 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from scrappy@hub.org) Received: by ganymede.hub.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 1E19A34F3F; Thu, 9 Oct 2003 22:19:46 -0300 (ADT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ganymede.hub.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B3FE33C2D; Thu, 9 Oct 2003 22:19:46 -0300 (ADT) Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2003 22:19:46 -0300 (ADT) From: "Marc G. Fournier" To: Lewis Thompson In-Reply-To: <20031010005515.GH587@lewiz.org> Message-ID: <20031009221555.W28590@ganymede.hub.org> References: <20030803200948.GA10712@lewiz.org> <200310091700.09658.kennyf@pchg.net> <20031009211629.T28590@ganymede.hub.org> <20031009212824.Q28590@ganymede.hub.org> <20031010005515.GH587@lewiz.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII cc: FreeBSD-questions cc: Kenny Freeman Subject: Re: Jail FS questions. X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 01:20:59 -0000 > 5.1-RELEASE, latest patches. I think this might be the problem. I'm > having vinum issues too. 'K, haven't started to play with 5.1 yet, since its still label'd as "not production quality" ... or at least it was when I asked before installing my last server a month or so ago ... > > permissions: do you have a way I can "test this"? > > If I use unionfs as the ``base'' for the jail then every directory seems > to be automagically owned by the person that mounted it (i.e. root). > This causes me problems for stuff like mailspool, etc. I think this is > the way unionfs works though, not an issue I am personally having. Ah, neat ... I'd never noticed that before ... its never affected anything as far as I've experienced though, but we don't unionfs mount /var, as there is a bug in unionfs dealing with sockets that mounting /var causing the server to crash repeatedly ...